tv Countdown With Keith Olbermann Current February 22, 2012 4:00am-5:00am PST
politics most of all. all of which puts his assessment of president obama in an entirely different light. >> some phony ideal. some phony theology. >> to say nothing about the proposed slip by his press secretary. >> he is referring to the radical islamic policies the president because. >> and pacman sheldon adelson says: did occupy wall street just win? more increased taxes for people making more than a million and $10 million.
and the "wall street journal" suggests that they break up the big banks. and breitbart! >> leave mealone! >> all of that and more on "countdown." [ sobbing ] ♪ >> good evening, this is tuesday february 21st, 268 days until the 2012 presidential election. rick santorum rising in one poll, slipping in another and hoping to ascend to the white house or perhaps the heavens. this is a santorum speech from nearly four years ago, to walk back the implication that the
president is the wrong religion. in florida 2008 he said: >> karl rove? if you are that judge and people for the american way together for perhaps the first time it's rick santorum. posting santorum on the right-wing sight. plans matt drudge does not want rick santorum to get the nomination, neither does ron paul.
>> santorum voted for billions of tax dollars? egypt. >> romney piling on with something similar. >> america is drowning in national debt, yet rick rick supported millions in earmarks. >> i am proud of all of the earmarks i put in effect. >> santorum firing back at president obama. >> obama's reckless agenda has got to be stopped. >> the champion to right-wing voters at least some of them. in the latest gallup poll but those same groups finding romney no less electable.
after weeks of improving numbers, the president now trailing romney by 4% in a gallup poll of registered voters leading santorum but just 1%. santorum maintaining his focus on the president last saturday. >> it's not about your it's about some phony ideal. some phony theology. >> santorum tried to clear that theological mess up on "face the nation" on sunday. >> i was talking about the radical environmentalist. this idea that man is here to serve the earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the earth. and i think that is a phony ideal. >> perhaps an ideal that could be linked to the corcoran.
>> there is a type of theological sectorism when it comes to the global warming in this world. that's what he was referring to. >> she later apologized for quote, there. santorum having previously assured the nation he didn't doubt mr. obama's faith. >> i don't question the president's faith. he says he is a question. >> though that is apparently not good enough for the reverent franklin graham. passing on the chance to comment on the president's religion. >> you would have to ask him. i cannot answer that question
for anybody. president obama, the muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them, than the christians that are being murdered in those countries. >> if republicans are secretly smiling at graham's remarks. mitt romney should not take from that. >> most christians would not recognize mormon. they have a lot of things that we don't accept. >> first for more on the increasingly theology-tinged gop race i'm joined now by joe williams. >> hi, good evening, brother olbermann. >> thank you very much. and let's keep saying satan
behind something. this santorum speech from four and a half years ago, is there a sense of how something that fiery and brimstony plays when it's interjected into a race like this right now. >> the polls tell part of the story. nationally romney is still stuck at that 20% feeling more less. and you have santorum making these remarks openly, and that gives some heart to conservatives who see that sort of language coming from him as authentic. he has got the authenticity and passion that romney lacks. and the more they are talking about this the less they are talking about economic recovery the environment, unemployment globalization and wage inequality. these are things they are not talking about, because the
religion is taking automatic of the air out of the room. and you have the elder states people pulling their hair out because this is not a conversation they want to have at this time. >> santorum's attacking the president's environmental theology obviously preceded the release release of that tape and his press secretary's error. >> simple slip of the tongue. >> sure. it's very often you point at an elephant and go mouse. it can't just be people spouting off at the mouth in the middle of a race. santorum has to be using the term theology regarding scientific practice, didn't he? >> in recent weeks the two
descriptors for rick santorum on the campaign trail were disciplined and irrelevant, almost in the same sentence. he has been a very disciplined campaigner, yet fallen way behind in the polls for just this reason. but certainly this kind of language is not just a dog whistle, it's an air-raid siren. he is certainly a candidate that it is no accident spouting this kind of rhetoric. but other saying this is who this guy is. he has talked this way years in the senate. he talks this way in his personal life, these are things he actually believes. >> the ron paul campaign airing this attack ad aimed right between santorum's eyes why is it aimed at santorum and not
romney. >> the enemy of my enemy is my friend. and in this case it happens to be true. ron paul and romney have this bro-mance as it has been described. they are still very good friends. they like each other personally. their world views are somewhat similar, so it's all good as far as that is concerned. that's why you see this ad coming from ron paulromney. and because mitt romney doesn't have he authenticity to speak on these issues. he really can't be calling out rick santorum as a fake conservative when many people feel the same way about mitt romney. >> and not to leave mitt romney out of this equation. he called president obama a threat to national security. how can this get worse unless
the republicans accuse the president of having a past in which he held up liquor stores. >> you ain't seen nothing yet, because this is only the primary. we have a lot of mud being slung interparty as well as against the president. this is the influence of money. money allows the sorts of things to be said without the candidates claiming ownership of them. money produces the opinions and gives life for these opinions to be swayed. and we have donors who wrote some real huge checks on the right today, and you'll see more of this going out towards the president. >> i think it might be a little early to play the satanic card. >> it's never too early for that sort of thing. >> joe williams of "politico," thank you again. >> my pleasure.
>> let's talk to andy cole, a reporter with "mother jones." thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> the gallup poll. this is registered voters and the margin of error is 4 either way. are there other explanations for it? is there a romney or republican surge indicated by that i don't think there's any underlying reason why this poll seems like an aberration. when you also look at the general trend from the beginning of this year, and through the president, president obama's numbers are stacking up against all republican candidates are on a slight uptick. job less claims are on a four-year low. things are turning up for him in the most important places so i
don't think we should read too much into this latest poll suggesting that obama is getting weaker somehow. >> this was additional hampering today it canning that president trails in some other states. those things that the white house would worry about? or were they expecting very little out of iowa and virginia anyway. >> no doubt this is getting brought into the fold. but we're so early in the race. obama has barely campaigned in any of these states. texas he didn't worry in 2008. when you look at iowa and virginia, the president did win those in '08, and virginia is obviously a very key swing state. but we haven't seen much money or time spent in either of those two states and really the
numbers don't mean that much at this point. it's the president's approval rating without any campaign stacked up against candidates that these voters are seen for months and months. >> you were talking about the white house absorbing data so they have data on whether or not conservative attacks on the president, whether they help the white house more than the fact they hurt them, because of the energizing effect they might have on president's supports. >> the white house hates it when the bogus controversies gets played out once again for the umpteenth time. so, you know david and all of the other -- jack lewd the
chief of staff they don't like this. but you can put this in an email and put it out to your millions of supporters, and say, look the basis of attacks and they put all of these responses on coffee mugs and t-shirts, so clearly they are not worried about responding, and i think it is a motivating tool it is also a distracting issue as well. >> thank you for your time andy. >> thank you. >> the presidential election is devolving into a the newest voice in cable news is on the new news network. >>it is an independent progressive voice and i love that. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two term governor. >>people like somebody who's got a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure
with jennifer granholm. >>i am jenniffer granholm and you are in the war room. it's a beautiful thing. >>jennifer granholm on current tv. >>i'm a political junkie. this show is my fix. >>in politics, she was a gutsy leader. in cable news, she's a game changer. >>be afraid, be very afraid. now, the two term governor from michigan is reshaping the debate with a unique perspective and a forward-thinking approach. >>our goal is to bring you behind the scenes with access to stories that you've never seen before. >>she's a trailblazer determined to find solutions. >>one of the key components of a war room is doing a bit of opposition research. >>driven to find the thruth. >>i'm obsessed with the role of govenment. >>fearless, idependent and above all, politically direct. >>part of the mission here in our own war room is to help these candidates stay on track. make your voice heard.
against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections, but as long as it's doable i'm going to do it. according to financial disclosures newt gingrich's campaign submitted yesterday, it appears this campaign is not the only one relying on just the one sugar daddy to keep it afloat. mitt romney still leading the way when it comes to cash. his campaign brought in $6.5 million for him in january. and his super pac brought in another 6.6 million. despite his recent absence of the trail, the gingrich pulled
in $5.6 million. and 91% of which was donated by the aforementioned adelson, and his wife miriam. ron paul's campaign brought in an impressive $5.5 million. for all of the talk of paul's supporters with 1.7 million of the paul's super pac coming from this man, paypal founder. and rick santorum brought in $4.5 million. his super pac brought in an additional $2.1 million including an additional 99 from mr. friess.
joining me now "politico"'s report. >> what terrified him was not a murderer like in "psycho," but the man who says i'm terribly sorry, but a man's family has got to eat, sorry. >> you have people on the right. you have people on the left who are all saying we don't really like the rules. you have barack obama on the one side who has been against this whole situation. what is he doing, a couple of weeks ago, hey, big dollar donors get behind my super pac. and mitt romney is saying i hate super pacs but his prescription is let's put this money to the campaigns directly. we looked at the numbers that
came out just last night. financial filings, and remarkably the super pacs in many cases are raising or spending more money than the candidates themselves in a situation that would have been utterly inconceivable. >> the ron paul super pac pulled in $2.4 million. the republicans have made the argument that money going to his super pacs would still wind up in the campaigns even if there weren't super pacs, but we would have less transparency. is there some truth in there? >> it's not truth insofar as the court laws are concerned. you are an individual and you want to write a check to a presidential campaign you can give $2,500 per election. but if you have a million dollars or $10 million, as the case is to donate to a
political entity now, because of the decision that has come forth, you can write as big of check as you possibly want. it's a real disconnect in terms of the amount of money that campaigns can raise, and the amount of money that political superpacks can raise. it's a situation that when the citizens united decision came down probably the supreme courts themselves were not sure how it would be play out in reality, and the reality we have now is very profound. and you have the most expensive election in the united states right here and now. >> funny how the supreme court justices weren't able to see how it would play out, when idiots like myself could see how it would come out. is there any extrapolation from that?
any my god, maybe mathematical formula at this point, to guess who republican backers would put into the general election? >> it's hard to say. but you are looking at a republican versus republican fight here and having tens upon tens of millions of dollars being spent to just shoot at each other. wait until you have a democrat versus a republican shooting at each other. and have the money to put behind the personal philosophies they are going to spend it because they can spend it even if they have to swallow hard and do it when they don't like to such as president obama saying get behind my super pac that is supporting me because if we don't play by the rules given us we're going to get our butts
kicked. >> before he reversed coarse and said, yeah let's work with it it collected in january 5, 9000 dollars which would be the mani that would fall out of adelson's packet as we wrote the checks to gingrich's super pac. >> that super pac was in a world of hurt it's a super pac that is run by white house staffers but they had no traction whatsoever up until now for fund-raising, so when some guys on the democratic side who can write big checks they are going to do so and the gap that exists right now, is slowly going to come -- maybe even quickly come shorter and shorter, and narrower and
on the date in 1988 jimmy swagart stopped denying the media reports that he was hiring prostitutes. and then here comes the water works. >> i have sinned against you, my lord, and i would ask that your preciousness would wash and cleanse every stain. >> stains! i don't want to know this? what is jimmy swagart doing
these days? what else rallying against gay marriage. >> i have never seen a man in my life i wanted to marry. if one ever looks at me like that i'm going to kill him and tell god he died. >> so you know what that means. time marches on. we begin with a man getting a back massage from baby goats. it's jimmy swagart. man tries to get up but apparently now he is being held captive. i don't know what is stranger the man with goats on him, or the person who is filming it. billy ryan? part of a robotic competition these kids created a robot that can play basketball. he is a great shooter.
clean cut. great intelligence. where did this jeremy lin come from again. and now golf shots. big swing. the ball seems to be heading into the crowd. he finds a man on the ground. he is fine except the ball went up the leg of his trousers. unfortunately mickelson didn't try to hit the ball into the shortless. and a story to tell his the newest voice in cable news is on the new news network. >>it is an independent progressive voice and i love that. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two term governor. >>people like somebody who's got
a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure that people have freedom. >>driven to find the truth... >>what's really going on? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct. [ laura ] maine is known for its lighthouses, rocky shore and most importantly its lobster. it's the tastiest, the sweetest, the freshest. nobody can ever get enough. [ male announcer ] it's lobsterfest at red lobster the one time of year you can savor
jamie dimon appeared to be echoing some of the outcries. he said blaming the banks is just a form of discrimination. but diamond now says: many on the right equate regulating wall street to suffocating the nation's big banks but the murdoch owned "wall street journal," invokes the law that does not do enough financial oversight.
bring in paul abrams crib ought to writer who wrote this up for the "huffington post" yesterday. thanks your four time. >> thank you for having me. >> when i read your piece, i thought maybe i missed something were his comments as surprising to you as they would have been to me. >> they were when they came out, but as you said i think occupy wall street changed the dialogue in the country, and they see there is an increasing chance that president obama is going to be elected and very much like the mafia of old they are going to bet on both sides. i think this is probably the
least that they care about. so in essence if you think of this as one big negotiation, they are signalling that this is what is least important to them. >> this leads me in two directions, the first one being that is there any chance that jamie dimon or this journal actually might get something they want? >> it certainly gives a lot more cover to people in congress but i think the tax issue for congressional republicans is their brand, and so when i wrote that they abandoned the republicans, jays my jamie dimon has abandoned the republican brand because it is not the most important thing to them. as far as the "wall street journal" is concerned it reminds me of john f. kennedy's quote when he said it is like the vatican city newspaper
criticizing the pope. >> is this just going to wind up being lip service and kind of a feel-good moment? >> well i think that there's -- it's a step in the direction. i think they have won something with the rhetoric. i don't suspect that inside -- i don't suspect that the lobbyists will be changing very much but it certainly gives a lot more backing to the notion that everybody basically agrees that we need to raise revenues and the best place to do that is number 1 raising taxes on those who can most afford it. >> i read the quote from dimon the second part of it in addition to a certain surcharge at a million and then 10 million, was the other part i don't think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids.
isn't this the essence of big money? >> i think so keith. i just think that we was recognizing a certain reality in the dialogue and if the occupy movement continues, if the police call momentum continues to move in the direction of raising taxes and doing the things that are necessary for the government to do such as building roads and bridges, et cetera, i think that they will have again, indicated what their least important concern is and they are more concerned with issues such as keeping the banks big, keeping their power and prestige and also avoiding a tax on financial transactions. by the way, keith, do you know what the average time that a share is now withheld. >> must be microscopic.
>> 24 seconds. [ laughter ] >> relative to the occupy message is there anything that those people involved in that protest can take from this and say this is a -- this is an mo for us to proceed in the future or is this just a one-off thing? >> no i think they can absolutely do it. >> basically the bully pulpit that the president has but hasn't used that much really recently wasn't really competitive with the right-wing media ability to get things out in many different directions. occupy by their actions brought a lot of attention to what they were doing, so everybody was talking about what they were doing, and then people started talking about what they were for. so i think they absolutely should continue what they are doing. >> yeah, and the idea of a point of view rather than agenda was
nominees for today's worst person in the world. paul babeu, you probably already heard the a mexican gentlemen samed jose not only alleged a long-standing gay relationship but insisted babeu and his attorney threatened to deport him if he revealed the relationship. turns out that was last month, and we noticed because the newspaper has deleted jose's comment.
so babeu's boyfriend posted a comment on about him on his website, and his campaign manager blamed it on babeu easementally ill sister. runner up frank luntz. he did the usually tired distasteful anti-obama humor and then went over the line. lovely. you want to have people visualizing chasing the president of the united states when he is on foot chasing him down. winner once again, andrew breitbart who's decent into madness accelerated over the weekend. this time not with a wine-fuelled episode, but a simple tweet, which indicated that the universal rejection
outside of the right-wing bubble was only further confounding his limited capacities. but breitbart is tonight in more than just twitter trouble. the district judge in d.c. refused his motion to dismiss the lawsuit against him by shirley sherrod, to whom he hounded out of her job. the judge noted that the law breitbart cited did not take effect until a month after sherrod had sued him and missed the deadline for filing his motion to dismiss by two more weeks. all of which brings up to the fifth episode of our series, an dry breitbart match-up video
theater. >> you are freaks and animals! >> how [ censor bleep ] out there make fun of brittany after all she has been through. all you people want is more! more! more! more! you are lucky she even performed for your bastards! >> stop raping people! >> believe brittany alone! >> stop raping the people! >> right now! i mean it. >> you freaks! you filthy freaks! you filthy filthy freaks! [ sobbing ] >> with my apologies to chris crocker, and of course
what is settled law in this country? and what might be reversed at anytime even after countless affirmations in the courts. the supreme court will revisit the role affirmative action plays in higher education. the high court said it will hear fisher v texas, to determine if abigail was denied admission to the university of texas because she was white. the federal appeals court
the affirmative action. but justice o'connor has been exceeded by samuel. he wrote: right now students in the top 10% of texas high schools are automatically admitted into that state's public university system. miss fisher missed the cut off and was put in to other things that were considered like work experience and community service. the last time the supreme court ruled on and
why are they taking this up now? >> probably a simple head count. the court is much more conservative. and keegan was a very strong vote likely in favor of texas. and the swing justice, justice kennedy voted previously against the position of sandra day o'connor in the case you just mentioned. but the odd thing is really timing. one of the most controversial parts of the o'connor decision is she sort of arbitrarily said we're going to allow this to happen for 25 more years, and a lot of people viewed that as why 25 years even justice brensberg and breyer would not sign on to
that opinion. but even under that analysis, we would have only -- you know the difference of maybe 15 more years for this to be good law. so there has been a lot of controversy about how o'connor wrote that opinion. but you are right. the question here is often one of what is called starry decisis. the court has always maintained it is not just a head count, it tries to have some consistency. the lower courts ruled that this plan of texas fell squarely within the guidelines of gruder so in order to come out the other way, you really have to shatter gruder and say we have five justices going the other way. >> what hand to the court saying we decided it this way, congress if you want to change it you change it. what happened to that line?
>> the problem with gruder is it was really fractured i mentioned the two justices would not sign on to o'connor's 25-year statement. you had a fracture among the decents, although they generally agreed that there should be no race consideration. there is also an added consideration where it has an out or justices. and whether mr. fisher still has a legitimate reason to ask for relief. the irony is she is just asking for her hundred dollar backs and the housing deposit, but clearly four justices wanted to see this case on the merits. there's no question that they have -- the presumed five votes that could send gruder in to the ashpin of history, with it could go affirmative action at least in consideration of race. >> how much would it go?
is it limited to educational applications or >> it depends on how they write it. as you just quoted sandra day o'connor's replacement makes a very clear position on this. that you can't fight race discrimination by considering race, and they could very well adopt that. you do have five strong justices here when it comes to not liking affirmative action and considering race issues. you know kennedy has been more nuanced, he hasn't been quite as strong, but chief justice roberts has been overoutspoken against the use of race. so my guess is the four justices that accepted this case, they have gruder in the cross hairs. they want to see it overturned. >> jonathan always a pleasure. thank you for